301 réponses à ce sujet

[ElementL09]

N00blet666 wrote...

If anything I think ME3 is less dumbed down than ME2. There are more RPG elements,you can customize weaponry,your skill tree's are more complicated than ME2's, you can still customize armor. ME1's weapon system sucked. All the weapons were the same they just had a different number next to them. The weapons in ME3 are actually different weapons not the same weapon with a different number. The combat is faster and more difficult. I don't see how you could possibly think that ME3 is dumbed down.

I agree.  You can customize you armor and powers and weapons just like Mass Effect.  Combat is more difficult as well even though you can move faster.

[AlanC9]

Sajuro wrote...

MostlyAutumn wrote...

Platonian wrote...

We have gone from a game with open galaxy exploration to one where you have little reason to visit star systems that do not have a mission in them.

And what was the reason to visit those star systems in ME1 exactly?

Also to try and get the Matriarch writings, which I am convinced are the Asari version of Kama Sutra

Yeah; they should have had an extra-special unlockable sex scene if you found all the writings. Maybe like the one in Team America: World Police?

[MostlyAutumn]

AlanC9 wrote...

Works great, if I'm playing an Adept.

But I should have been a little more specific -- how do you handle husks on a mission where you didn't prepare to fight husks because you're not metagaming? Though I guess on high levels you probably want someone with Warp in the party all the time.

If you didn't prepare, you can always just run around and shoot them.

Another example. I mostly played as Vanguard and shotgun at point blank range, Area Reave, Shockwave, Charge, Squad Cryo Ammo and Grunt all worked pretty well. I don't think any metagaming is required since Singularity+Warp for Adept and above-mentioned powers for Vanguard are pretty standard builds for these classes.

[dreman9999]

aksoileau wrote...

Streamlining =/= dumbing down. Thats all I'll say.

So the evolution of the functionality of the car is dumbing down....Because it was so great to crank it up first then to have and ignition switch.

[AlanC9]

If you're playing an Adept or a Vanguard. What about, say, Engineer? Area Incinerate's OK, but not super. At higher levels you can often keep most of them on your drone, of course.

I didn't find Jack's Shockwave to be especially effective against husks. Grunt worked fine if you brought him along for that mission.

It might be just that I'm worse at the running and shooting part than most players are.

Modifié par AlanC9, 20 février 2012 - 05:43 .

[dreman9999]

AlanC9 wrote...

If you're playing an Adept or a Vanguard. What about, say, Engineer? Area Incinerate's OK, but not super. At higher levels you can often keep most of them on your drone, of course.

I didn't find Jack's Shockwave to be especially effective against husks. Grunt worked fine if you brought him along for that mission.

It might be just that I'm worse at the running and shooting part than most players are.

It sound like you are having a cooldown provlem....What's you tech level at?

[Alex_SM]

AlanC9 wrote...

MostlyAutumn wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...
What? ME2 on Insanity is really fun, but very very easy. 

Even waves of husks? I always found those fairly difficult on Insanity. What's your method?

I'm not  Alex_SM, but I'll answer. Wide singularity + unstable warp for example.

Works great, if I'm playing an Adept.

But I should have been a little more specific -- how do you handle husks on a mission where you didn't prepare to fight husks because you're not metagaming? Though I guess on high levels you probably want someone with Warp in the party all the time.

Edit: you still reading, Gatt9? This tactic needs two evolved 4th level powers. I thought leveling up didn't matter.

I  use very simple tactics while facing husks: lots of running+incinerate ammo (better if it's inferno)+inferno grenades+vindicator always aiming for the head*. (Soldier)

I have no problem to go back some distance in order to get the waves separated and have some time between husks. 

Also I tend to not let my crew use their powers, so I could use them as if were my powers. Also my companios usually are Tali+Garrus or Tali+Miranda (except on Loyalty missions), because I really don't care if they are useful, but if I like them or not. Sometimes I randomly switch, but it's never about what I think is useful for the mission, but about "I have not used XXXX for a long time". 

*Aiming via keyboard+mouse is rather easy.


IMO Mass Effect (PC) on Insanity is harder than Mass Effect 2 (PC), but also is quite broken (and boring). Sometimes is just like the enemies have unlimited health and zero intelligence. I spent several minutes running in circles around a Colossus while shooting at it (Virmire, on level 59 on Insanity), and it was unable to hit me, but still I needed a lot of time to kill it. 

Modifié par Alex_SM, 20 février 2012 - 06:01 .

[MnMH]

piemanz wrote...

furryrage59 wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

furryrage59 wrote...

Who said it requires a huge amount of intelligence?

The thread title?

I don't see anywhere where it says a huge amount of inttelligence is required.

I suggest some glasses.

"The Dumbing Down Effect "

You don't think that the title implies that ME1 requires a greater degree of intelligence than ME2 or ME3?

I know I'm late to this party, and I hesitated to get involved in this thread until I saw this post.

This is the sort of tripe that makes these threads so difficult to slough through.

Even ignoring the fact that the title is sensationalized to grab your attention, "The Dumbing Down Effect" doesn't come close to implying that ME1 requires a greater degree of intelligence than the other games in the series. Rather, the OP means that relative to ME1, 2 and 3 are overly simplified--something the OP finds bad.

If you're going to respond to the OP, at least make an effort to understand it.

[Ziggeh]

MnMH wrote...

"The Dumbing Down Effect" doesn't come close to implying that ME1 requires a greater degree of intelligence than the other games in the series.

Other than by outright saying they're dumber.

[Sajuro]

AlanC9 wrote...

MostlyAutumn wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...
What? ME2 on Insanity is really fun, but very very easy. 

Even waves of husks? I always found those fairly difficult on Insanity. What's your method?

I'm not  Alex_SM, but I'll answer. Wide singularity + unstable warp for example.

Works great, if I'm playing an Adept.

But I should have been a little more specific -- how do you handle husks on a mission where you didn't prepare to fight husks because you're not metagaming? Though I guess on high levels you probably want someone with Warp in the party all the time.

Edit: you still reading, Gatt9? This tactic needs two evolved 4th level powers. I thought leveling up didn't matter.

Cryo ammo, freezes the husk for easy smashings.

[AkiKishi]

Ziggeh wrote...

MnMH wrote...

"The Dumbing Down Effect" doesn't come close to implying that ME1 requires a greater degree of intelligence than the other games in the series.

Other than by outright saying they're dumber.

Another way to look at it is it requires more thought to play.

Squad Cryo is great for instanity.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 20 février 2012 - 06:44 .

[MnMH]

Ziggeh wrote...

MnMH wrote...

"The Dumbing Down Effect" doesn't come close to implying that ME1 requires a greater degree of intelligence than the other games in the series.

Other than by outright saying they're dumber.

I don't think my point needed further illustrating, but thank you.

The title refers to the game, not the players of the game. You insist on confusing the title's subject.

[AJRimmsey]

12 pages abd still argueing that "dumbing down" for consoles is not happening ?

and that the same dumbing down is ported to pc,rather than just for consoles ?

is this whats called blind ignorance ?

[MnMH]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

MnMH wrote...

"The Dumbing Down Effect" doesn't come close to implying that ME1 requires a greater degree of intelligence than the other games in the series.

Other than by outright saying they're dumber.

Another way to look at it is it requires more thought to play.

Maybe. I think this best way to look at it is that ME2 was greatly simplified compared to its predecessor.

-ME1 had both combat and noncombat zones and some that were hybrids of both. The zones in ME2 are binary.

-While the inventory system in ME1 was deeply flawed, it was at least present. It was virtually eliminated in ME2, and what items you did have you could only access between missions. And you couldn't access much. You had a handful of guns, and armor mods.

-The narrative, or what passes for a narrative, in ME2 was deeply flawed. Apart from three or four story missions, you spend most of your time helping your erstwhile teammates with their daddy issues. And I won't get started on the lore violations.

-In ME2 the skill trees are designed such that there is only one way to optimize your skill point usage. Even with the skill evolutions, you're extremely limited in how creative you can be. Each successive item in a tree required a greater number of points to unlock it, making higher level increases less meaningful.

I'll agree that ME1 was far from perfect. But it's difficult me to call a reduction in player options, and a half-assed narrative, a fan service.

[MnMH]

AJRimmsey wrote...

12 pages abd still argueing that "dumbing down" for consoles is not happening ?

and that the same dumbing down is ported to pc,rather than just for consoles ?

is this whats called blind ignorance ?

It wasn't dumbed down for consoles. It was just dumbed down, the platform has nothing to do with it. I play games on consoles exclusively, and I think ME2 was too simplified compared to ME1.

Try to keep the red herrings to a minimum.

[AJRimmsey]

MnMH wrote...

AJRimmsey wrote...

12 pages abd still argueing that "dumbing down" for consoles is not happening ?

and that the same dumbing down is ported to pc,rather than just for consoles ?

is this whats called blind ignorance ?

It wasn't dumbed down for consoles. It was just dumbed down, the platform has nothing to do with it. I play games on consoles exclusively, and I think ME2 was too simplified compared to ME1.

Try to keep the red herrings to a minimum.

Then this discourse has to be shunted to pause until we see exactly how far down the "streamling" trail it has gone.
But as its the last one,whats the point.

If its the usual chain of events this forum will fill with ranting frothers who swear never to buy another bioware game.
Only to reappear a year later drinking in next game hype.

beginning to think its the masses that are dumbed down

[Ziggeh]

MnMH wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

MnMH wrote...

"The Dumbing Down Effect" doesn't come close to implying that ME1 requires a greater degree of intelligence than the other games in the series.

Other than by outright saying they're dumber.

I don't think my point needed further illustrating, but thank you.

The title refers to the game, not the players of the game. You insist on confusing the title's subject.

I actually meant the game, but that's still an attempt to apply an objective intellectual standard to player preference.

In calling a game dumber you are either saying that it requires less intellect to play or that it is of less intellectual value, in either case and combined with the pejorative it's still making a valuejudgement about the kind of people who play these games.

It's pure rhetoric and entirely unhelpful.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 20 février 2012 - 08:07 .

[MnMH]

In calling a game dumber you are either saying that it requires less intellect to play

 

No. You. Aren't. The OP was clearly referencing the simplification, or in the OP's opinion, over simiplification of the second game. You cannot reasonably infer anything about OP's opinion of player intelligence from the statement.

in either case and combined with the pejorative it's still making a valuejudgement about the kind of people who play these games.

The only value judgment it makes is the OP's preference of what s/he deems complex over what s/he deems simple. It says nothing, at all, about the kinds of people who play the game. Believe or not, people really aren't out to insult you.

You might prefer the more simplified of the two games--and that's perfectly okay. But that should be your argument, not that OP thinks less of people who disagree with him/her.

[AlanC9]

MnMH wrote...

-In ME2 the skill trees are designed such that there is only one way to optimize your skill point usage. Even with the skill evolutions, you're extremely limited in how creative you can be. Each successive item in a tree required a greater number of points to unlock it, making higher level increases less meaningful.

I thought I had more meaningful choices in ME2 than in ME1, actually. And at high levels in ME1 all character builds converge.

[Ziggeh]

MnMH wrote...
No. You. Aren't. The OP was clearly referencing the simplification, or in the OP's opinion, over simiplification of the second game. You cannot reasonably infer anything about OP's opinion of player intelligence from the statement.
 

Dumb. The use of the word dumb while not discussing it's ability to speak. I get that he, and it's many other uses here are refering to complexity, but they are equating it with "dumb". By using the word dumb.

[AlanC9]

Regardless of the thread title, the OP made it pretty clear where he stands..

ME2 is a good game, I wonder if ME3 will even will even be that? Someone in a focus group out there will have told them that navigating star systems is too hard or shooting without aiming correction is too difficult. If you think this process has stopped here with ME2 you are naïve, as long as they think it will bring a few more punters in the dumbing down will continue.

I don't see how this can be interpreted as anything but insulting to people who don't share the OP's tastes.

[Il Divo]

MnMH wrote...

The only value judgment it makes is the OP's preference of what s/he deems complex over what s/he deems simple. It says nothing, at all, about the kinds of people who play the game. Believe or not, people really aren't out to insult you.

Uhh, yes it does. That's how deduction works. If higher intellect is required to play game A, individuals who cannot meet that intellectual requirement cannot reasonably handle the game.

Much like how if I were to say that it requires more leg strength to play professional soccer than football, that qualifier tells you something about what is deemed necessary. That's exactly why it's "dumbing down" as opposed to "dumbing up". It cannot work in reverse.

Primary Point: phrases like "dumbed down" are not necessary to make an argument, and more often than not the term is simply used to refer to games people dislike, particularly in cases like the OP where the lack of exploration is (somehow) dumbing down.

[MnMH]

Ziggeh wrote...

MnMH wrote...
No. You. Aren't. The OP was clearly referencing the simplification, or in the OP's opinion, over simiplification of the second game. You cannot reasonably infer anything about OP's opinion of player intelligence from the statement.
 

Dumb. The use of the word dumb while not discussing it's ability to speak. I get that he, and it's many other uses here are refering to complexity, but they are equating it with "dumb". By using the word dumb.

So you recognize that the OP isn't using the word dumb in the context in which you insist, and then insist on using that way anyway?

I think I'm done.

[Ziggeh]

MnMH wrote...

So you recognize that the OP isn't using the word dumb in the context in which you insist, and then insist on using that way anyway?

I think I'm done.

Equating. I suggesting they were equating it with dumb. By using the word Equating.

[MnMH]

Il Divo wrote...

MnMH wrote...

The only value judgment it makes is the OP's preference of what s/he deems complex over what s/he deems simple. It says nothing, at all, about the kinds of people who play the game. Believe or not, people really aren't out to insult you.

Uhh, yes it does. That's how deduction works. If higher intellect is required to play game A, individuals who cannot meet that intellectual requirement cannot reasonably handle the game.

Much like how if I were to say that it requires more leg strength to play professional soccer than football, that qualifier tells you something about what is deemed necessary. That's exactly why it's "dumbing down" as opposed to "dumbing up". It cannot work in reverse.

Primary Point: phrases like "dumbed down" are not necessary to make an argument, and more often than not the term is simply used to refer to games people dislike, particularly in cases like the OP where the lack of exploration is (somehow) dumbing down.

That's how poor deduction works. It's like saying that because calculus is more complex than algebra or geomotry, the people who prefer algebra or geometry are too stupid to do calculus. The conclusion simply doesn't follow from the premise. If that's not something you understand, I'm not sure I can make it any more simple for you.